BENJAMIN versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 656 · Decided: 11-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 1 S.C.R. 656 
A 
BENJAMIN 
,I.. 
v. 
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
(Crl. A. No. 76 of 2006) 
B 
JANUARY 11 , 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.] 
~ I 
' 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder- By three accused-
Multiple and severe injuries on the deceased - Enmity between 
c parties - Eye-witness to the occurrence - Ocular evidence 
corroborated by medical evidence - No delay in lodging of 
FIR and commencing of investigation - Trial court convicting 
all the accused -- High Court convicting one, but acquitting 
rest of the accused -
On appeal, held: Conviction of the 
D accused by High Court is correct - In view of number and 
nature of injuries and the medical evidence intention of the 
accused is proved. 
Criminal Law- 'Mens rea' - Determination of - Held: It 
should be determined in the facts of each case. 
E 
Appellant-accused No. 1, alongwith accused Nos. 2 
and 3 was prosecuted for having caused death of a 
person. According to prosecution case, there existed 
enmity between the parties. The accused had been 
F 
causing various kinds of mischief against the deceased 
on various occasions. Few months before the occurrence 
~ 
in question also, they allegedly put the haystalk of the 
• 
deceased on fir.e. When the deceased and PW-1 were 
coming on a bicycle, somebody flashed torchlight on the 
deceased. PW-1 also flashed his torchlight and saw the 
G appellant. Appellant assaulted the deceased, accused No. 
3 caught hold of the deceased and accused No. 2 
... 
threatened PW-·1 on the point of a knife. FIR was lodged. 
Trial Court convicted all the accused. High Court upheld 
~
the conviction of appellant-accused, but acquitted 
H 
656 
r. 
BENJAMIN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
657 
--
..t 
accused Nos. 2 and 3. Hence the present appeal. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Keeping in view the number of injuries 
inflicted on the deceased as also the nature thereof and 
furthermore in view of the opinion expressed by the 
doctor, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the B 
I ..i 
appellant had the intention to kill the deceased. [Para 18) 
[662-F] 
2. The High Court while mentioning about the 
conduct of the appellant, meant overt acts attributed on c 
the part of the appellant. The High Court merely opined 
that in view of the number of injuries inflicted upon the 
deceased, he had an intention to kill him. Intention to kill 
a person must be determined having regard to the factual 
scenario involved in each case. The doctor (PW-3) has D 
clearly stated that the injuries suffered by the deceased 
-..\ 
could have been caused by the log of wood, which was 
marked as M.0.1. Medical evidence, thus, corroborated 
the ocular evidence. [Para 17] [662-C-E] 
3. PW-1 and PW-4 have proved enmity between the E 
parties. Veracity of statements of the said witnesses to 
that effect was not tested in the cross-examination. The 
fact that an incident had occurred a few days prior to 
the incident in question is also not in dispute. [Para 11) 
._, 
[661-C] 
F 
"' 
4. The investigation commenced immediately after 
the lodging of the First Information Report. ltis not a case 
where an undue delay in lodging the First Information 
Report took place. [Para 12] [661-E] 
5. PW-1, although may be son of the deceased, but it G 
• 
is difficult to disbelieve his statement that he had 
..... 
witnessed the occurrence. The cycle and the torch used 
by PW-1 had no connection with the commission of the 
offence. If they had not been seized by the police, for one 
reason or the other, the same by itself would not be a H 
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A ground to disbelieve the statement of PW-1. [Para 15] 
... -
[661-H; 662-A] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 76 of 2006. 
B 
From the final Order dated 18.1.2006 of the High Cou~t of 
Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1997. 
T. Raja for the Appellant. 
>. 
I 
V. Kanakaraj, V.G. Pragasam, S. Joseph Aristotle and S. 
c Prabhu Ramasubramanian for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order 
D dated 19th January, 2006 passed by a Division Bench of the 
Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.142 of 1997 whereby 
~ 
and whereunder the appeal filed by the appellant against an 
order of conviction dated 30th January, 1997 passed by the 
• 
Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul Anna District, was 
E dismissed. 
3. Appellant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.